Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202324812)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324812

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

30 September 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A rodent infestation.
    2. Damp and mould in the property.
    3. The resident’s compensation claims for damaged belongings.
  2. This Service will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord between December 2017 and February 2024. She occupied the property with her 2 children aged 7 and 2. The landlord was aware the resident has a mental health condition. The landlord was also aware that both children had additional needs and were supported by external agencies. The property was a 2-bedroom first–floor flat. The landlord was the freeholder of the property and the building.
  2. In July 2023 the resident complained she had an infestation of rodents. She said she had been affected by the infestation since 2017. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged it had been an ongoing issue for her. It said it had organised a surveyor’s inspection and a visit by its pest control contractor to identify points of entry and consider why the issue was reoccurring. It offered £100 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. In September 2023, the resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She complained the landlord had not identified the root cause of the infestation. She also complained there was damp and mould in the bathroom and on the windows, a persistently faulty boiler, and an infestation of silverfish in the kitchen and bathroom. She disagreed with the £100 compensation and expressed her wish to move out of the property.
  4. In October 2023, the landlord upheld the stage 2 complaint. It accepted it had not identified the root cause of the infestation within a reasonable timescale. It also acknowledged it had not responded to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in a timely manner. Its response did not address her complaints about silverfish or the faulty boiler. It said its surveyor would visit the following week with its pest control contractor. It said its compensation offer was in line with the failings it had identified.
  5. At the end of the complaints process the resident raised the issue of her personal belongings that had been damaged by mould. The landlord awarded £1023 compensation for these.
  6. In December 2023 the landlord offered the resident alternative accommodation. The resident moved into the new property in January 2024.
  7. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer and considers the compensation for distress and inconvenience and damaged belongings should be increased.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident informed this Service the rodent infestation has been ongoing since 2017. She confirmed the landlord attended and laid bait on each occasion she reported the issue. While the first formal complaint was made in July 2023, this Service will consider the landlord’s actions in the 18 months leading up to the formal complaint. The evidence also shows the infestation had not been resolved at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response in September 2023. Therefore, the scope of this investigation will also consider the landlord’s handling of the issues up to January 2024.
  2. The resident informed the landlord and this Service that her mental health was made worse by the rodent infestation. After the complaints process was exhausted, she informed the landlord her children experienced monthly chest infections because of damp and mould. This Service cannot determine causation or liability regarding the impact on the resident’s mental health or children’s health because of the landlord’s actions or inactions. However, this Service can consider how the landlord responded to her reports about the impact on herself, and the children’s health.
  3. On the same day the landlord issued its final complaint response, the resident made a compensation claim for personal belongings damaged by mould. The landlord appears to have responded to the resident’s compensation request as part of its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of this matter as part of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a rodent infestation

  1. The tenant’s handbook shows the landlord is responsible for pest control at the property. It says it will consider all cases individually. It states it will ask the resident a series of questions to build an overall picture. It will then decide to ask its own contractor to attend, or it will signpost the resident to external treatment providers. This Service is pleased to see the landlord acknowledges the management and treatment of infestations are a shared responsibility between the resident and the landlord.
  2. The records provided show in the 18 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint the landlord’s pest control contractor attended on 4 occasions. This comprised 3 occasions in 2022 and 1 occasion in June 2023. The evidence shows the landlord arranged for its contractor to lay bait in the loft. This was appropriate based on the resident’s reports, but the landlord has not provided any evidence that it reviewed the effectiveness of the treatments after they were carried out. The fact the resident continued to be affected during 2023 should have prompted the landlord to review its treatment approach.
  3. When the resident reported the issue again in June 2023 the landlord repeated its previous approach of laying bait in the loft. It does not appear to have reviewed its prior actions and consider what it might need to do differently to bring about a permanent solution.
  4. On 4 July 2023 the resident complained that she was still being affected despite several pest control visits. She said the noise and scratching in the loft at night disturbed her and her children’s sleep and made her depression and anxiety worse. As part of its stage 1 response the landlord organised its pest contractor to attend again. The contractor informed the landlord that it had been treating infestations for several years prior to the resident’s tenancy. It believed the issue stemmed from the sewerage system under the building. Given the persistent nature of the infestation and the link to the sewer it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange a CCTV inspection. However, the records show this did not happen until 3 months later on 27 October 2023. While this Service acknowledges investigations requiring specialist equipment and multiple contractors might take longer to organise, this Service considers the landlord was too slow in organising this. Positively, the evidence shows the landlord’s contractor was in frequent contact with the resident about the issue. This reassured the resident that action was going to be taken.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 August 2023 (the landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report). It apologised for the recurring issue. It said its pest contractors would carry out further visits. It said its surveyor would also inspect the property to investigate why the infestation was recurring. It offered £100 for the delays in identifying the root cause of the issue and £25 for its late complaint response. The landlord’s compensation offer was fair, and it set out a plan to resolve the issue which was appropriate.
  6. On 12 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said despite the contractor’s treatments in the previous weeks, there were rodents in the floors and walls, as well as the loft which caused her extreme anxiety and fear. She said she had to take sleeping tablets to be able to sleep at night. No evidence has been provided the landlord responded to this. This lacked empathy and was unreasonable. She also complained she had an infestation of silverfish in the bathroom and kitchen, the bathroom ceiling and windows were covered in mould, and her boiler was faulty (these matters will be considered later in this report). She said she was not able to put up with the situation any longer and wanted to move to a different property. She expressed her view that the compensation offered was insulting.
  7. At this stage it would have been appropriate to contact the resident to discuss the issues and the new parts of the complaint. It does not appear the landlord did this. The resident had to chase up the landlord a week later stating she had not received a response. This was unsatisfactory and caused inconvenience.
  8. On 8 September 2023 the landlord and pest contractor jointly inspected the property. The was appropriate because it allowed the landlord to gain a detailed overview of all the issues affecting the resident and the property. It requested its pest contractor to provide a full report on the property and the block. These were appropriate steps to take. It also identified extensive works were needed elsewhere in the property. These were in the kitchen, bathroom, and to the windows and doors.
  9. On 15 September 2023 the landlord provided its final complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint about not resolving the infestation in a reasonable timeframe. It acknowledged it had not taken appropriate action after previous reports of the problem. It said it had learned from the situation and would review cases where there had been multiple attendances at individual properties. It said it would provide clearer timeframes in the future. It said its surveyor would progress the works identified at its visit the previous week. It said its compensation offer was in line with its policy. This Service finds the landlord’s position on its compensation offer was heavy handed given that it had not managed to resolve the matters complained about by the end of its complaints process. In the circumstances it would have been fair to review its compensation offer when the matters had been fully resolved. Additionally, the records show the resident continued to experience inconvenience and distress because of the infestation after the landlord’s final response.
  10. On 27 October 2023 the landlord and its pest contractor attended the property again to inspect. The contractor lifted floorboards in the property and found a rodent had chewed electrical wiring. The contractor said it would need to remove all the floorboards to treat the area. As a result of the floorboards being lifted the resident experienced mites. The landlord documented that she was ‘inconsolable’ and called the landlord several times a day. The landlord treated the mites within 5 days. This was appropriate given the impact on the resident and in line with the landlord’s urgent repairs service standard.
  11. In November 2023 the landlord concluded the extent of the works needed in relation to the infestation, damp and mould, and major works required in the property meant the resident would need to move out. The landlord’s internal communications demonstrate it approached the situation with urgency. It adopted a solution-based approach and considered the individual needs of the resident and her children. In the following days it offered hotel accommodation. It also offered a temporary move to a property from within its own stock. It was empathetic in relation to the resident’s reasons for not accepting temporary options. It then made an offer of permanent accommodation. In January 2024 the resident moved out of the property. These actions were appropriate and reassured the resident the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
  12. Overall, this Service finds there was room for improvement in the landlord’s handling of the rodent infestation. While this Service has not identified any undue delays in its response times when the matter was reported, it appears to have underestimated the extent and impact of the infestation. Between January 2022 and October 2023, the landlord treated the property on at least 8 occasions, but these treatments did not cure the infestation. It continued with the same approach of setting bait in the loft when the evidence showed that this by itself was not effective or dealing with the root cause. This meant the resident was negatively impacted by the infestation for almost 2 years. It took longer than it should have to organise the inspection of the sewer area, and it did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s reports of the impact of the situation on her mental health. Taking everything into account this Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a rodent infestation.
  13. The landlord offered £100 for the inconvenience caused. However, as previously stated the situation had not been resolved at the time of the landlord’s final response and compensation offer. This Service finds the resident continued to experience inconvenience and distress as evidenced by her reports of rodents in October and November 2023, despite the interventions of the pest control contractor in the same period. This is because it had still not identified the root cause of the infestation. This Service finds the resident only gained relief from the issue when she vacated the property in January 2024. This investigation has also identified additional failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue as set out in paragraph 24. Having regard to the remedies guidance where maladministration exists this Service makes an order for additional compensation of £250 to be paid to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its repairs policy and its ‘welcome to your new home’ booklet do not describe how it will deal with reports of damp and mould.
  2. In October 2021, the Ombudsman published its spotlight report on damp and mould, ‘It’s not lifestyle’. This recommended that landlords ensure their response to reports of damp and mould is timely and reflects the urgency of the issue. The landlord introduced a damp and mould policy in October 2023. The policy states where its surveyors consider conditions within a home to be prejudicial to health or extensive works are required, it will consider the individual circumstances and wishes of the household. This includes any vulnerabilities and whether it is appropriate to move resident out of their home at an early stage.
  3. On 12 August 2023, in her stage 2 complaint escalation request, the resident reported there was mould in various locations around the property. No evidence has been provided to indicate that the landlord took any action. This was inappropriate, especially since the report was made as part of a complaint escalation request. On 19 August 2023, the resident chased up the landlord. It responded on 24 August 2023. This was almost 2 weeks from when the resident first reported the mould. This timescale was unreasonable and not in line with its customer service standards for responding to customer correspondence, and not in line with the response timescales set out in its repairs policy. It asked questions about her lifestyle and asked her to send photographs so it could triage her report. While this was an appropriate course of action it was untimely because the landlord should have responded to the report sooner.
  4. On 8 September 2023 the landlord inspected the property. This was 4 weeks after the resident first reported the mould. It found extensive mould behind the kitchen units, around the windows and in the bathroom.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged it had failed in responding to the resident’s report. It said its surveyor had since inspected and it would progress the damp and mould work. It did not offer any remedy for the service failures. This was unreasonable because where the landlord accepts there have been failings in its service delivery it should consider how it might be able to put things right.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged it had failed in responding to the resident’s report. It said its surveyor had since inspected and it would progress the damp and mould work. It did not offer any remedy for the service failures. This was unreasonable because where the landlord accepts there have been failings in its service delivery it should consider how it might be able to put things right.
  7. The landlord carried out mould treatments on or around 13 October 2023. This was just under 9 weeks from when the resident first reported the mould. This Service considers this was too long given the repair timescales set out in its repairs policy. This situation caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  8. In October and November 2023, the resident informed the landlord that her children were experiencing regular chest infections because of the damp and mould. This Service has not seen any evidence the landlord responded to this or made further enquiries with the resident. This was inappropriate. While it is accepted that by this time the landlord was working hard to move the family out of the property, this Service expects where a resident discloses a medical condition has been made worse by housing conditions, the landlord will contact the resident to discuss the issues, carry out a risk assessment and keep this under review.
  9. This Service has identified delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould. These were the time it took to respond to the initial report, and the time it took to carry out mould treatments after its inspection. The landlord’s approach meant the resident had to put up with the damp and mould for longer than necessary which caused her distress and worry. It also did not respond to the residents reports of the impact of the damp and mould on the household’s health. Accordingly, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This Service makes an order for the landlord to pay £200 for the delay and inconvenience caused by and the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation claims.

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states: ‘There may be occasions when it is considered appropriate to offer compensation to tenants and leaseholders where they have incurred financial loss. In these circumstances costs must have been reasonably incurred and evidence of such loss will need to be provided.’
  2. On 15 September 2023 the landlord issued its final complaint response. In response to this the resident requested compensation for personal belongings that had been damaged by mould. The landlord considered the resident’s claim. This Service considers this to be positive practice given the matters were not raised at stage 1 or in the stage 2 escalation request 4 weeks earlier. The resident’s claim was for shoes and a child’s mattress that she said had to be replaced 4 times in 2 years. The mattress cost £30 each time. The landlord offered £200 in compensation for the mattress and shoes.
  3. In November 2023 the resident made a further claim for £500. This was for damage to a wardrobe, clothes, and accessories. The following day the landlord agreed to pay £500.
  4. In January 2024, the resident submitted a further claim for damage to curtains, nets, 2 bed frames, a small wardrobe, shoes, and other accessories. She claimed £969.The landlord asked for proof of purchase and receipts. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. Due to the amount of time that had passed the resident could not provide these. The landlord offered £323. It said its offer was based on depreciation, wear and tear and the fact no receipts had been provided. This Service finds the landlord’s approach at this stage was slightly heavy handed. This is because the evidence shows that on or around 24 November 2024 the resident sent the landlord pictures of damaged belongings. This Service has seen some of these pictures and is mindful the landlord could have already compensated the resident for some of the items, but also considers the landlord may have missed an opportunity to verify the residents January 2024 claim by way of the photographs provided to it at an earlier stage.
  5. The total amount of compensation offered for damaged belongings was £1,023. This Service finds the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation claims in September 2023 and November 2023 was fair and reasonable. However, the Ombudsman finds there was a service failure in the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s January 2024 compensation claim. This Service orders the landlord to reassess the claim using the photographic evidence sent to it by the resident between September and December 2023. It should then decide if it would be appropriate to make a further payment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints process. Its policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states ‘Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition.’
  3. There were some positive aspects to the landlord’s complaint handling. The responses are appropriately structured. It sincerely apologised for the issues and provided email addresses of individuals responsible for progressing matters. It outlined how it would apply learning to future cases. However, this Service has also identified a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 4 July 2023. This meant the landlord’s response was due no later than 17 July 2023. However, the landlord contacted the resident on 19 July 2023 to request an extension of 10 further working days. This Service understands that at times the landlord will need more time to investigate, however, it should have contacted the resident before the date the response was due. In its extension request it gave a new response date of 2 August 2023 but did not provide its response until 10 August 2023. This means the landlord took 5 and a half weeks to complete stage 1. It explained it had staffing issues. It acknowledged it had not provided its response on time and offered £25 for the delay. However, it did not acknowledge its failing in making a late request to extend its response time.
  5. The resident then submitted her complaint escalation request. She raised new issues such as an infestation of silverfish and a persistently faulty boiler. The complaint handling code states that where a stage 1 response has already been issued the landlord should raise a new complaint for new issues. This Service recognises in some cases it may be appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion to include and consider new matters at stage 2. In this case, the landlord decided to include the new matters in the complaint definition section of its stage 2 response, but then failed to reference them at any stage after this. The situation means the resident did not receive a response to these parts of her complaint. This would have caused annoyance to the resident. For the complaints process to be effective the landlord must ensure it responds in full to all points contained in the complaint definition. The landlord should consider ways in which it can quality check its complaint responses prior to issuing.
  6. Additionally, the landlord provided its stage 2 response 1 week after its due date. This Service has not seen any evidence the landlord agreed this timescale with the resident. In its stage 2 response it did not apologise or offer any remedy in the same way that it did at stage 1. The landlord should be mindful to be consistent. This Service takes into account that it has not identified any detriment caused to the resident, nor has the resident reported any detriment to this Service.
  7. This Service finds the landlord failed to request an extension for its stage 1 response in a timely manner. It then did not respond to parts of the resident’s stage 2 complaint even though they were contained in the complaint definition. It then provided its stage 2 response late. When taken together this Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling which caused inconvenience to the resident. This Service makes an order for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation.

Summary

  1. This Service finds this was a challenging case for the landlord. While there was room for improvement in the landlord’s handling of the issues, the evidence shows it acted with urgency when it realised the cumulative impact of the infestation and repair issues on the resident and her family. After the complaints process was completed, it communicated proactively with the resident until she vacated the property. It enquired about her wellbeing and how mould and rodent treatments were progressing. This Service finds the landlord demonstrated customer focus and empathy in its communications, and it provided financial assistance in relation to moving to the new home.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a rodent infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation request.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the issues.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £550 in compensation broken down as:
      1. £250 for the impact of the failings in its handling of the rodent infestation.
      2. £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in treating the damp and mould.
      3. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Reassess the resident’s January 2024 compensation claim using the photographic evidence already supplied by the resident. It should inform the resident and this Service of its decision.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should discuss this report with its pest control contractor and consider how it can improve outcomes for residents experiencing persistent rodent infestations.